KERALA TRANSPORT COMPANY Vs. C R ANANDAVALLI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Rent Control Court allowed the application of the respondents/ landlords under S.11(2) and 11(3) of The Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, for short The Act and ordered eviction of the petitioner from the building; but only on the ground of bona fide need. This order was rendered on 31-7-1989. Thereupon the petitioner filed R.C.A. 11/89 before the Appellate Authority namely., the Subordinate Judge, Thodupuzha on 16-10-1989. This appeal was well within the prescribed time. On 17-10-1989 the petitioner moved an application for stay of execution of the order of eviction. On the request of the respondents, the said application was posted to 21-10-1989 to enable them to file their objections. The hearing was adjourned to 24-10-1989. In the meantime on 26-9-1989 the Notification conferring on the District Judge the powers of Appellate Authority was published in the Gazette. Pursuant to the Notification, the High Court issued an Official Memorandum No.D1-4668/86 dt. 8-9-1989, relevant portion therefrom reads:-

(2.) Before the District Judge, the respondents took up a contention that since the appeal reached the District Court only on 31-10-1989, the same must be deemed to have been filed only on that day and hence barred by limitation. This was the state of affairs when the petitioner filed the application with the prayer that the District Judge 'be pleased to accept the appeal as properly filed invoking his inherent jurisdiction'. In the affidavit in support of this petition, the counsel appearing for the petitioner has averred 'as follows:--

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner raised three points: (1) The Division Bench rulings of this court namely 1973 KLT 138 and 1978 KLT 330 notwithstanding, the Appellate Authority should have entertained the appeal applying the legal principle discernible from the legal maxim 'Lex Non Cogit Ad Impossibilia'. (2) Inasmuch as the defect in filing the appeal cannot be attributed to the petitioner but only to the court, the petitioner can press into service the legal principle that no act of courts shall harm a litigant contained in the legal maxim 'Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit' and contend for the position that the appeal was properly filed. Point No.(3) can be stated thus: Since this is a case where the order of the Rent Control Court was pronounced prior to 26-9-1989 the date on which the Notification was published, the appeal can be taken to the Subordinate Judge.